Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research

University of Mosul
College of Arts
English Language Dept.

Linguistic Imperialism

A Paper complied by

MuAMMAR K. Younis

Amour_iraq@yahoo.com 2012

1
 Introduction :
Through time, many scholars tried to shed light on the spread of
languages over others. It is significant to find out whether this spread is
planned or not. The questions that need sufficient answers are: Is this
spread was a result of political and military control? Has it to do with
imperialism?

However, the first who tried to penetrate deeply to find answers to such
questions was Robert Phillipson who first suggested the term Linguistic
Imperialism. In his book, linguistic imperialism, he discusses the theory of
imperialism associating it with language. He rejects to use the terms
cultural imperialism and linguistic imperialism interchangeably for he
believes that linguistic imperialism different from, yet related to, cultural
imperialism. He also explained how different linguistic terms related to
language embodied the dominance of certain languages which, as he
explains, is a mere linguistic imperialism.
WHAT is ImperiALism ?
Lenin (1973:49) cited in Phillipson (1992:45) points out that
imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. An essential feature of
imperialism is rivalry between great powers, a competition that culminated
in the first world. Ambiguity can arise from uncertainty as to whether the
term is being used in a technical sense, most often in relation to an
economic system, or in a more general political sense. This ambiguity can
be traced back to the nineteenth century, when imperialism embraced both
an economic order and wider 'civilizing' goals. Hobson's classic study of
imperialism (1902) cited in Phillipson (1992: 44) is divided into two parts,
one on the economics and one on the politics of imperialism. The
imperialism powers ascribed themselves a missionary role which was
based on explicitly racist premises. Part of the 'civilization' was, needless
to say, language.

Williams (1976: 156) cited in Phillipson (1992: 45) maintains that if

imperialism, as normally defined in late 19th century England, is primarily
a political system in which colonies are governed from an imperial centre,
for economic but also for other reasons held to be important, then the
subsequent grant of independence or self-government to these colonies can
be described, as indeed it widely has been, as "the end of imperialism". On
the other hand, if imperialism is understood primarily as an economic
system of external investment and the penetration and control of makers
and sources of raw materials, political changes in the status of colonies of
former colonies will not greatly affect description of the continuing
economic system as imperialist.

In current political argument the ambiguity is often confusing. This is

especially the case with 'American imperialism' where the primarily
political reference is less relevant, especially if it carries the 19th century
sense of direct government from an imperial centre, but where the
primarily economic reference, with implications of consequent indirect or
manipulated political and military control, is still exact. Neo-imperialism
and especially neo-colonialism have been widely used, from the middle of
the 20th century, to describe this latter type of imperialism.
Linguistic ImperiALism

Many scholars, such as Brosnahan (1963) , Fishman (1977) , Crystal

(2003), have dealt with the spread of certain languages over others. The
power and military control was the main reason considered for the spread
of these certain languages. Brosnahan (1963) cited in Spolsky (2004: 78)
discuss the reasons behind the spread. Brosnahan maintains that the tree
languages- Arabic, Greek and Latin- which survived their empires shared
four characteristics. These characteristics are: the spread by military
conquest, they became languages of administration, their rule lasted for
centuries; and they served as a lingua franca in multilingual areas.

Phillipson (1992: 46) maintains that we live in a world characterized by

inequality- of gender, nationality, race, class, income and language.
Phillipson goes further in explaining the inequality of language and
suggests a working definition of English Linguistic Imperialism (ELI).
ELI, in his view, is the dominance of English which is asserted and
maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitituation of
structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages.
Structural inequality refers broadly to material properties (for example,
institutions, financial allocations) and cultural inequality refers to
immaterial or ideological properties (for example, attitudes, pedagogic
principles). Phillipson claims that English linguistic imperialism is one
example of linguicism which is defined as 'ideologies, structures, and
practices'. These are used to legitimate, effectuate, and reproduce an
unequal division of power and recourses (both material and immaterial)
between groups which are defined on the basis of language.

English linguistic imperialism is seen as a sub-type of linguicism. The

structural and cultural inequalities ensure the continued allocation of more
material resources to English than to other languages and benefit those
who are proficient in English. Linguicism occurs, for instance, if there is a
policy of supporting several languages but if priority is given in teacher
training, curriculum development, and school timetables to one language.
One forum in which the legitimation of this lingucism takes place is in
political discourse on language issues. Another forum in which linguicism
is legitimated is in language pedagogy. The legitimation of English
linguistic imperialism makes use of two main mechanisms in relation to
educational language planning, one in respect of language and culture
'anglocentricity', the other in respect of pedagogy (professionalism)
(Ibid:47).

Phillipson (1992) defines and link it with professionalism. The term

anglocentricity has been coined by analogy with ethnocentricity, which
refers to the practice of judging other cultures by the standards of one's
own. There is a sense in which we are inescapably committed to the
ethnocentricity for our own view, however much insight and
understanding we have of other cultures. Anglocentricity takes the forms
and functions of English, and the promise of English represents or can
lead to, as the norm by which all language activity or use should be
measured. It simultaneously devalues other languages, either explicitly or
implicitly.

Professionalism refers to seeing methods, techniques and procedures

followed in ELT, including the theories of language learning adhered to,
as sufficient for understanding and analyzing language learning.
Phillipson also argues that ELT professionalism excludes broader society
issues, the prerequisites and consequences of ELT activity, from its
professional purview.

Anglocentricity and professionalism legitimate English as the

dominant language by rationalizing activities and beliefs which
contribute to the structural and cultural inequalities between English and
other languages. The professional discourse around ELT disconnects
culture from structure by limiting the focus in language pedagogy to
technical matters, that is language and education in a narrow sense, to the
exclusion of social, economic, and political matters.

LAngUAge: Different Terms

There are different terms related to language which were suggested

by different scholars. Such terms capture the concept of imperialism.

Calvet, in one of his studies about language and colonialism, makes a

distinction between two lingual terms which are language and dialect.
Clavet (1974: 54) cited in Phillipson (1992: 39) points out that a dialect is
never anything other than a defeated language, and a language is a dialect
which has succeeded politically. An example of this concept is that, in
colonial discourse, all African languages were classified as dialects.
Clavet refuses to use the binary opposition 'language and dialect' because
colonial discourse abused the terms and because such analysis requires
terms which express the power relationship between competing
languages. He therefore refers to the dominant languages and dommated
languages.

Skutnabb-Kangas (1984) cited in Phillipson (1992: 39) suggest that, in

some circumstances, the term mother tongue may be preferred, for which
the defining criteria are origin, function, competence, self-identification,
and identifications by others and the assumption is that the individual can
have more than one mother tongue.

Illich (1981: 57) cited in Phillipson (1992: 40) discusses the term
'vernacular language'. It is made up of the words and patterns grown on
the speaker's own ground, as opposed to what is grown elsewhere and
then transported. Now vernacular is generally used both in its technical
sense and in popular speech, to mean a localized nonstandard or
substandard language in contrast to a literary, cultured, or foreign
language. The term therefore stigmatizes certain languages and holds
other up as the norm. Furthermore, Phillipson argues that the definition
of vernacular language stated by The Unesco is not sufficient one. The
Unesco monograph on the use of vernacular languages in education
defines a vernacular language as 'a language which is the mother tongue
of a group which is socially or politically dominated by another group
speaking a different language. We do not consider the language of a
minority in one country. Here, two further terms need to be distinguished.
They are: 'national language' and 'official language'.

A national language is the language of a political, social, and cultural

entity and an official language is a language used in the business of
government- legislative, executive, and judicial. However, a language
might be a national language and an official one at the same time. An
official language tends to be associated primarily with current political-
operational needs while a national language is the language whose use is
viewed as furthering sociocultural integration at the nation wide level.

The term lingua franca is also ambivalent term. Phillipson (1992: 41)
claims that the term now frequently applied to dominant international
languages which happen to be the former colonial languages- for instance
'English as the lingua franca of international scientific context'. In the
Report on the Conference on the Teaching of English as a Second
Language, lingua franca was defined as 'any non-English language which
is widely used, or taught in schools for use, between nationals of the
same country, but which is not the mother tongue of all'. The restriction
of lingua franca to country-internal uses is bizarre, but the placing of
English in a category of its own, superior to all other languages are
merely lingua franca or vernaculars, is a clear example of colonialist
discourse.

A temporary dictionary definition, as Crystal (2003), lingua franca is

'a language which is used for communication between different groups of
people, each speaking a different language. It might be the native
language of one of the groups but not necessarily. It could be a language
which is not spoken by any one of the two groups but it is adopted in
communication simply because its simplified structure and vocabulary'.
Therefore, the tendency is to promote English as the only lingua franca
which can serve modern purposes. This discourse also puts English into a
class of its own. This reinforces the dominant ideology, which
presupposes that English is the most eligible language for virtually all
significant purposes.

Gultung's Assumptions on Linguistic ImpeRIALISM

Galtung's theoretical works represent an attempt to integrate all
various dimensions of imperialism to be situated in relation to other types
of imperialism. Galtung's theory does not refer to linguistic imperialism,
but this can be seen as a sub-type of what he refers to as cultural
imperialism.

Galtung (1980:128) cited in Phillipson (1992: 52) posits six mutually

interlocking types of imperialism: economic, political, military,
communicative (communication and transport), cultural; and social.
Imperialism is 'a type of relationship whereby one society "or collectivity
in more general terms" can dominate another'. It is controlled by four
mechanisms, the most essential of which is exploitation, the others being
penetration, fragmentation, and marginalization.

Phillipson points out that Galtung's goal is 'an image of imperialism

rich enough to capture a wide variety of phenomena, yet specific enough
not to be a tautology'. Galtung's theory suggests a division of the world
into a dominant Centre (the powerful western countries and interests),
and dominant Peripheries (the underdevelopment countries). There are
centres of power in the Centre and in the Periphery. The peripheries in
both the Centre and the Periphery are exploited by their respective
Centres. Elites in the Centres of both the Centre and the Periphery are
liked by shared interests within each type of imperialism and, in
particular, language. The norms, whether economic, military, or
linguistic, are dictated by the dominant Centre and have been internalized
by those in power in the Periphery. The interlocking of the various types
of imperialism can be seen in the way cultural imperialism serves to
reproduce the material conditions for exploitation (an economic-
reproductive function) and to legitimate exploitation (an ideological-
reproductive function).

ConspiRAcy Theory
Spolsky (2004: 76-91) discusses the concept "linguistic imperialism"
which was adopted by Phillipson. Spolsky maintains that the theory of
linguicism and linguistic imperialism is a conspiracy theory. He claims
that Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson defined linguistic imperialism as the
intentional destruction of a powerless language by a dominant one.
Linguicism involved granting overrepresentation to one language, just as
racism and sexism gave overrepresentation to one race or one sex.
Furthermore, Spolsky maintains that Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson
believed that larger, more powerful languages were driving out small,
weak ones. Spolsky argues that Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson felt
strongly the suffering of speakers of small languages, and the way that
disadvantaged groups -- the colonized, the immigrant, the conquered, the
minorities -- were everywhere confined to the bottom of the
socioeconomic heap. As linguists, they chose to concentrate on language,
developing concepts of linguistic imperialism and linguistic genocide,
which shared in all the opprobrium of real imperialism and genocide.
Both also assumed that these phenomena were not natural, not a complex
result of a multitude of factors interacting with changing linguistic
ecology, but the direct and simple result of planned intervention by
identifiable human agents, that they were the outcome, in other words, of
language management.

Phillipson, in an article published in language policy (2007), replies

to the attack of Spolsky. Phillipson maintains that Spolsky detaches
language from all other factors involved in empire, military, economic,
religious etc, whereas Phillipson (1992) integrates the role played by
linguistic imperialism within a wider imperial, exploitative structure.
Phillipson further argues that Spolsky falsely states that Skutnabb-Kangas
and Phillipson define linguicism as 'the intentional
destruction of a powerless language by a dominant one' which he and
Skutnabb-Kangas have never written. The definition is 'ideologies,
structures and practices which are used to legitimate, effectuate and
reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (both material and
non-material) between groups which are defined on the basis of language
(on the basis of their mother tongues). Linguistic imperialism is a sub-
type of linguicism - and manifestly not reducible to any conspiracy
theory.

Phillipson also points out that Spolsky searches in his book for
evidence of language management outcomes that are the direct and
simple result of planned intervention by identifiable human agents, that
they were the direct
outcome of language management. After presenting evidence from a
selective range of contexts, Spolsky concludes that the causal factor was
imperialism rather than linguistic imperialism. He also concludes that the
global pre-eminence of English is due to "the changing nature of the
world", English being widespread, and because 'the remaining
superpower used it unselfconsciously' , so that English was merely there
for the taking.

Phillipson, in his article, explains how his concept of linguistic

imperialism is not, at all, a conspiracy and considers Spolsky's attitude as
"conspiracy of silence".

Conclusion
Whether it is called linguicism, cultural imperialism, or linguistic
imperialism, the concept is the same. The fact that there are some
dominant languages over others cannot be neglected or denied and, of
course, there are certain factors and decisions that work together to keep
this dominance of these languages. The more a language is dominant, the
more it gives upper hand for its nation and people for it represents the
source of political, cultural, financial and educational power. What is
important to know is that the simplicity in structure and vocabulary of a
language, besides the support provided, is what helps a language to be a
dominant language and the English language is a good example of this.
 References

-Crystal, D. (1997): English as Global Language. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
-Crystal, D. (2003): A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
-Phillipson, R. (1992): Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
-Phillipson, R. (2007): Linguistic imperialism: a conspiracy, or a
conspiracy of silence? Language policy, 6/3-4, 377-383.
-Spolsky, B. (2004): Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Websites Consulted in the Study

1. www.wikipedia.org